leveraging cross-disciplinary science for induced ... · ~ activism / debate over shale development...
TRANSCRIPT
Kris J. Nygaard
Sr. Consultant
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Houston, Texas
Transatlantic Knowledge Sharing Conference on Unconventional Hydrocarbons:
Resources, Risks, Impact and Research Needs
Session 1 – Induced Seismicity
Amsterdam
June 20, 2017
Leveraging Cross-Disciplinary Science for Induced Seismicity Risk Management
The Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing
~ Activism / debate over shale development opportunities and risks
~ Significant USA greenhouse gas reductions (fuel switching)
The Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing
~ 45% of USA domestic oil production
~ 65% of USA domestic natural gas production
Image source: United States Energy Information Agency, Annual Energy Outlook 2016, August 2016, Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(2016) available at
“http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf
Keys To This Success
Managing Risks
• Responsible operations philosophy
• Effective risk management framework
Managing Uncertainties
• Accounting for subsurface complexity
• Calibrating models with appropriate data
• Evaluating results based on risk mitigation, and the probabilities &
consequences
Collaborating with Stakeholders & Regulators
• Working with local communities to manage impacts
• Transparency and reasonable regulations to enable safe and sound
development
• Supporting research to improve understanding and risk mitigation
Induced Seismicity Risks
Subject of Extensive Dialogue in N. America Since 2011
Blue – select examples of regulatory approaches developed based on local situation
Red – select examples of significant work to better inform the stakeholder community
British Columbia & Alberta
Ohio
Colorado
Arkansas
US Environmental Protection Agency
Colombia
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Illinois
USA National
Academies
California
Stanford “SCITS”
Pennsylvania
Saltwater Disposal Operations
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations
StatesFirst Initiative
The Knowledge & Science Continues to Evolve
National Research Council of the National Academies
Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies”. 2013.
(ISBN 13: 978-0-309-25367-3)
available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13355/induced-
seismicity-potential-in-energy-technologies
Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission. Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity
Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and
Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and
Mitigation. 2015. 141 pages.
Available at http://www.statesfirstinitiative.org/induced-seismicity-
work-group
USA National Academies Report (2013) StatesFirst Report (2015)
Effective Risk Management
Focus on Assessment & Mitigation
Reference:
King, G.E., (2012) “Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist,
Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know
About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil
Wells”, SPE Paper No. 152596
Risk is the combination of:
• Probabilities
• Consequences
Risk mitigation via:
• Design
• Equipment
• Procedures
Probability C
on
seq
uen
ce
Incre
asin
g
Decreasing
Mitigators
Risk Assessment
How Seismicity May Be Triggered by Fluid Injection
A fault may slip due to
injection when it is
sufficiently close to “critical”
stress conditions and the
subsurface stress or
pressure is sufficiently
altered
Integration of multiple
technical disciplines are
required to inform the
understanding
Subsurface Stresses Can Change Due to Many Causes
Dominant Cause
Natural tectonics
Unique or Rare
Circumstances
Aquifer level changes
Dam/reservoir impoundment
Mining
Carbon Capture & Storage
Wastewater disposal wells
O&G injection/extraction
Hydraulic fracturing
Risk is Associated Ground Motion …
and substantially depends on local conditions
Example simulation based on Groningen
subsurface characterization
Developed after information contained in Wald, D.J., Worden, B.C.,
Quitoriano, V., and Pankow, K.L., 2005, ShakeMap manual: technical
manual, user's guide, and software guide: U.S. Geological Survey, 132
p. Wald, D.J., Quitoriano, V., Heaton, T.H., and Kanamori, H., 1999,
Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground
Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California: Earthquake
Spectra, v. 15, no. 3, p. 557-564.
Characterized by Modified Mercalli Intensity
“MMI”, Magnitude, PGA, & PGV Scales
Salt Water Disposal & Hydraulic Fracturing
Are Significantly Different
Hydraulic Fracturing
Saltwater Disposal
Long-term Injection (years)
Relatively Large Volumes
Injection into Relatively High
Permeability and Porosity
Zones
Short-term Injection (days)
Relatively Small Volumes
(compared to injection wells)
Post-fracturing, flowback relieves
pressure
Saltwater Disposal Operations
Image: Courtesy Stanford Professor M. D. Zoback
Example – Disposal Wells
Oklahoma, USA
Examples of Regulatory Approaches
• Revised permitting conditions
• Volume/rate restrictions
• Enhanced monitoring requirements
• Traffic light systems
Volume / Rate Restrictions (Oklahoma)
Under unique geologic conditions seismicity
can be triggered by subsurface pressure
changes associated with large volume / long
term injection
Hydraulic Fracturing Operations
Examples of Regulatory Approaches
• Enhanced monitoring requirements
• Traffic light systems
• Operational adjustments
< 2.5 (no action)
≥ 3.5M (suspend)
≥ 3.0M (pause, modify)
≥ 2.5M (mitigate)
Oklahoma, USA
< 1.5M (no action)
≥ 2.5M (temporary halt)
≥ 2.0M (modify)
≥ 1.5M (communicate)
≥ 3.0M (suspend) Ohio, USA
Alberta, Canada
> 4.0M (cease)
> 2.0M (inform, response)
< 2.0M (no action)
“Micro-seismicity” always occurs and is
normally expected with hydraulic fracturing
In rare circumstances, surface-felt seismicity
may be triggered by subsurface pressure /
stress changes from hydraulic fracturing
Illustration of distribution of micro-seismic measurements obtained during hydraulic fracturing operations in major N. America shale basins. Illustration after Warpinski, N. (2014). A Review of Hydraulic-Fracture Induced Microseismicity. 48th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA-2014-7774, p. 12. Minneapolis: American Rock Mechanics Association.
Examples of Industry Response
• Developing and sharing
information on risk management
approaches
• Pursuing internal research
• Supporting and collaborating
with university research
• Sharing knowledge and
information with regulators
• Selecting well locations
available fault maps
historical seismicity
records
• Limiting volumes / shutting in
wells
• Installation of proprietary
monitoring arrays
Stanford University Fault Slip Potential Software
publicly available at https://scits.stanford.edu/software
Co
nseq
uen
ce
Probability Lower Higher
Lo
we
r H
igh
er
Research Opportunities
• Improving the knowledge of natural tectonics and subsurface stress /
pressure conditions and identification of significant faults systems
prone to slip
• Improving the understanding of ground shaking behavior and seismic
wave attenuation characteristics
• More broadly establishing integrated and interdisciplinary fit-for-purpose
technical approaches for risk management
• Developing effective capabilities and methods, based on integrated
physics, to differentiate naturally-occurring earthquakes from induced
earthquakes
• Approaches to assess and manage seismicity risk should be
encouraged and be based on the local geology, situation, and
conditions
State regulators in the USA have concluded “A one-size-fits-all
approach is infeasible, due to significant variability in local geology
and surface conditions, including such factors as population, building
conditions, infrastructure, critical facilities, and seismic monitoring
capabilities.”*
• Collaboration between industry, regulatory agencies, and the
research community will continue to advance the science and
knowledge surrounding induced seismicity
Summary
16
* Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. (2015). Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation. Oklahoma City: GWPC / IOGCC.
Select References For This Presentation
17
Publications
Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. (2015). Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation. Oklahoma City: GWPC / IOGCC.
King, G. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference (p. 80). The Woodlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:doi:10.2118/152596-MS
Rubinstein, J. L. (2015). Myths and Facts on Wastewater Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhanced Oil Recovery, and Induced Seismicity. Seismological Research Letters, 86.
The National Research Council. (2013). Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies. The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13355
USEPA. (2015). Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. Washington, DC. : Underground Injection Control National Technical Workgroup, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Warpinski, N. (2014). A Review of Hydraulic-Fracture Induced Microseismicity. 48th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA-2014-7774, p. 12. Minneapolis: American Rock Mechanics Association.
Walters, R., Zoback, M., Baker, J., and Beroza, G. (2015) Characterizing & Responding to Seismic Risk Associated with Earthquakes Potentially Triggered by Fluid Disposal and Hydraulic Fracturing, doi:10.1785/0220150048 Seismological Research Letters Volume 86, Number 4 July/August 2015
McMahon, P.B., Barlow, J., Engle, M., Belitz, K., Ging, P., Hunt, A., Jurgens, B., Kharaka, Y., Tollett, R., and Kresse, T. (2017) Methane and Benzene in Drinking-Water Wells Overlying the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shale Hydrocarbon Production Areas, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00746, Environmental Science & Technology Article ASAP, available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b00746
Workshop Proceedings
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Water Science and Technology Board; Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development (2016) Workshop on Onshore Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development: Legacy issues, induced seismicity, and innovations in managing risk. “Panel 4: Induced Seismicity: Present Understanding and Future Approaches to Manage Risk”. video recording of presentations and discussion available at http://nas-sites.org/uhroundtable/past-events/onshore-workshop/onshore-workshop-panel-4/
Thank you